2006 Faculty Well-Being Survey: Extension, Engagement & Economic Development

1. 2006 Faculty Well-Being Survey: Extension, Engagement & Economic Development Extension Operations Council Presentation April 11, 2007 Nancy Whelchel, PhD Assistant Director for Survey Research University Planning and Analysis http://www2.acs.ncsu.edu/UPA/survey/faculty/

2. Overview • Survey background • Participation in Extension, Engagement, & Economic Development activities • What activities? • How often? • By who? • Support and rewards for EEED • The pay-off: reputations and recommendations • Open-end comments

3. Survey objectives • Provide readily accessible, “centralized” information • Collect relevant & actionable data

4. Survey development • Advisory committee • UPA, Faculty Senate, FCTL, ODAAA, HR, OEO • Feedback from • EOs, VP, Deans, Faculty Senate, Legal Affairs, IRB • Pre-tests • Tenure-track faculty, lecturers, department head

5. The questionnaire • Included 13 areas related to ‘well-being’ • @350 closed-end • 8 open-end

6. Survey topics • Image and vision • Leadership • Faculty-Administration relationships • Diversity/Multiculturalism • Working relationships • Faculty support & professional development (including contracts/grants) • RPT • PTR • Pay & compensation • Campus infrastructure • Recreation/wellness • Work activities • Overall satisfaction

7. Survey population • On campus • No off-campus Cooperative Extension Services employees • Tenure/non-tenure track faculty/lecturers (including dept heads, music, PE, FYC, extension, clinical, research) • FTE .75 AY04-05 & AY05-06 • Final population = 1,625 • No sampling

8. Survey methods & response rate • Web-based • Available Sept. 6 – Oct. 10, 2006 (29 days) • 69.7% response rate (1,132 of 1,625) • Margin of error +/- 0.9 percentage pts • No significant differences in response rate between subgroups

9. Results & reports available online(www2.acs.ncsu.edu/UPA/survey/faculty) • Introduction, Research Methods, & Response Rates • Executive Summary (overall results) • Annotated Questionnaire • Tables of Results • Academic profile (rank, tenure status, admin experience) • Demographic profile (gender, race/ethnicity, citizenship, age, # yrs at NCSU) • College • Overall results • Tenure-track faculty only (coming soon) • By academic and demographic profiles (coming soon) • Select presentations • Invitation for feedback

10. Update: Presentations • Council of the Status of Women (Jan. 18) • Association for Women Faculty (Jan. 24) • Research Operations Council (Feb. 15) • University Diversity Advisory Committee (Feb. 26) • Faculty Senate (Feb. 27) • Research and Graduate Studies Retreat (March 1) • Vice Provosts (April 9) • Extension, Engagement and Economic Development Operations Council(April 11) • DELTA (April 13) • Human Resources (June 12) • BOT: Academic Affairs and Personnel Committee (Sept. 20)

11. Update: Ad Hoc Requests • Task Force on Post-Tenure Review • CHASS • EEED • ODAAA • Others…

12. The Six Realms of Faculty Responsibility (plus administration) 39% of faculty spend time on EEED activities

13. EEED activities:Percentage of EEED participants engaging in… • Extension educational, non-credit programs 49% • Service learning teaching and mentoring of students 28% • Public service grants and contracts 26% • Partnering w/ private sector in job and investment creation 24% • Economic development training and technical assistance 20% • 17% engage in 3 or more types of activities

14. Time spent on the Six Realms of Faculty Responsibility (plus administration)* Median percentage of total work time spent on EEED activities = 9% *among those spending any time on activity

15. Percent of total work time spent on EEED activities (cumulative)* *among those spending any time on EEED • 10% of faculty spend at least 50% of their time on EEED. • 34% of faculty spend at least 10% of their time on EEED • 48% of faculty spend 5% or less of their time on EEED

16. Time Spent on the Six Realms of Faculty Responsibility (plus administration)* Median number of hours per week engaged in EEED activities = 4 hours (Mean = 10 hours per week; stdev=11.6) *among those spending any time on activity

17. Number of hours per week spent on EEED activities* 32% of faculty spend more than 8 hours per week on EEED activities *among those spending any time on EEED

18. Percent of total work time spent on EEED activities, by college • Most involved: CNR, CALS, CVM • Less involved: PAMS, CHASS, COM

19. Percent of time on EEED (by gender, rank, & tenure status) • Most involved: Tenured, Men • Less involved: NTT, Women

20. Collaboration Faculty engaged in EEED activities are much more likely to collaborate with others in their department, in other NC State departments, from other universities, and external constituents. Collaborates With:

21. Collaboration Among EEED participants, extent of collaboration varies by college • 90% or more collaborate ‘frequently’ or ‘sometimes’ with other faculty in department • CALS, COT, CVM, CED, COE, CNR, CHASS, PAMS • 80% or more collaborate with faculty in other NC State departments • CALS, COT, COE, CNR • 80% or more collaborate with faculty from other universities • CALS, CED, CNR • 80% or more collaborate with non-university external constituents • CALS, COT, COM, CNR

22. Support and rewards for innovative EEED activities 86% of faculty agree (29% ‘strongly’) that the university supports efforts to be innovative in EEED. 70% of faculty agree (17% ‘strongly’) that the university rewards efforts to be innovative in EEED. 69% of faculty agree that the university BOTH supports and rewards efforts to be innovative in EEED.

23. supports innovation: Design (46%), CALS (38%), CNR (38%) Full Profs (31%) (Does NOT vary by EEED participation) rewards innovation: COT (26%), CVM (20%) Assistant Profs (19%), Full Profs (18%) (Does NOT vary by EEED participation) Support and rewards for innovative EEED activitiesMost likely to “strongly agree” that the University…

24. Resources to support faculty success with EEED Favorable ratings for University providing support for EEED are very similar to opinions about support for other areas of responsibility: 66% “strongly agree” (10%) or “agree” (56%) More likely to give favorable rating: Assistant Profs (74%) COT (86%), CED (72%) Non-EEED participants (71% vs 61% EEED participants)

25. Rewards for excellent performance in EEED Favorable ratings for University rewarding excellent performance in EEED are similar to opinions about rewards for other areas of responsibility (except ‘discovery of knowledge’…): 71% “strongly agree” (16%) or “agree” (54%) More likely to give favorable rating: Full professors (78%) CALS (87%), CVM (81%) (No difference by EEED participation)

26. National reputation of department Ratings for extension & engagement are similar to or better than for other department activities (60% rate as above average) Ratings for economic development are lower than for other department activities (47% rate as above average) “Very strong” ratings: • Extension & engagement 23% • Undergraduate education 22% • Research & scholarly activities 21% • Graduate education 20% • Contributions to economic development 11% • Technological & managerial innovation 10%

27. National reputation of department 42% of all faculty believe their department has a “very strong” or “strong” national reputation for BOTH extension and engagement AND economic development. (5% rate both ext/engage & econ dev as “weak” or “very weak.”)

28. National reputation of department Opinions vary by college • Reputation for extension & engagement Most likely to say “very strong”: CNR (51%) CALS (46%) COT (41%) • Reputation for contribution to economic development Most likely to say “very strong” CNR (23%) CALS (18%) COT (14%)

29. Resources & rewards = strong national reputation • Among EEED participants, perceptions that the department has a strong national reputation for extension and engagement increase with an increase in satisfaction with university resources and rewards for EEED activities.

30. Resources & rewards = strong national reputation • Among EEED participants, perceptions that the department has a strong national reputation for economic development increase with an increase in satisfaction with university resources and rewards for EEED activities.

31. Resource & rewards = recommendations Among EEED participants, the likelihood of recommending the department as a good place to work increases with an increase in satisfaction with university resources and rewards for EEED activities.

32. EEED-related open-end comments • Biggest concerns being a faculty member at NC State/Suggestions for improvements (@ 40 comments): • Value of EEED (e.g., mission of University, within dept) • Support for EEED activities (e.g., funding, staff) • Recognition/rewards for EEED activities (e.g., RPT process) “Service is no longer valued. I would never recommend either teaching or extension to a young faculty member as the message we get is that grants pubs are all that count.”

33. EEED-related open-end comments • Most positive aspect of being an NC State faculty member (@ 25 comments): • Being a part of the land grant tradition • Flexibility to pursue extension activities • Value of/support for land grant tradition “Outside the university environment, many of the regular people of North Carolina look to us for answers and for leadership. Helping these folks through extension education and service activities brings personal pleasure.”